That is why you call ahead of time and tell them when he will be arriving and that he will be playing.
That gives them time to figure out the accomodation.

What accommodation was made? It seems pretty black and white that the casino refused the make an accommodation that would allow the player to play in the tournament. (Obviously, being able to see your cards is necessary to play in the tournament.)

And you can't use a state regulation as an excuse to violate a federal law.

You shouldn't have to do that though as a disabled person. I would like to know if the caretaker suggested a reasonable accommodation or not. I've found that if you tell them what they can do to help you do get a lot further. That information doesn't seem available though.

Yup..
It’s the GTO play. Gonna make more $ then any of the fish try hard poker players.
GG WP.

SHARE SHARE SHARE

ITT lawyer nerds who are disconnected from reality virtue-signal for the litigious during a pandemic

imagine holding this view during a pandemic, lol. i can imagine you adjusting your bowtie while you're typing it out.

There are disabled advocates who 'audit' public accomodations to see if they are in compliance. Some do it for money, some for public good.

Whatever the motivation, the fact is that the casino ignored the disabled in it's preparation for covid. Ignoring the disabled is a nationwide problem that you can only understand the scope of if you are disabled, or care for someone who is disabled.

The entire urine problem I don't get. If he was playing, the urine thing was gonna fill up anyway, no?

There are lots of disabled people who are all accommodated, there are very few who are rolling around Vegas who need a helper to do everything, I’m sure not every industry in the world is prepared for this scenario without warning.

You're such a ****.

You guys aren't viewing this from the Poker Room's perspective.

I'm guessing that the caretaker, because he had to handle the cards, chips, etc. was actually the person in the "plexiglass booth", and the disabled person was behind him, techincally outside of the plexiglass booth, basically sitting in the between-table walkways. Definitely not COVID compliant according to NGCB.

Now imagine if this disabled person, who may or may not already be immuno-compromised due to his condtion, were to contract COVID. And then the volumes of Poker Room security camera footage is made public showing him not seated properly according to COVID protocols.

The Poker Room would be in an absolute shitstorm at that point, and all of the pitchfork holders ITT would be screaming "how could Poker Room let him play while not making sure he's being COVID compliant, etc."

+1

every person calling me a jackass would simultaneously be outraged at venetian if they were tangentially responsible for this disabled dude dying of covid after playing a tournament and not having adequate protections. also venetian would get sued out the wazoo exponentially.

Let me be the dissenting voice: your friend does not look like he is in shape to participate in a live poker tournament. Shame on The Venetian for di.king him out like this, but was this really a good idea?

Wow, this thread is very full of:

1) A lot of people with a rather unenlightened view of accommodating disabilities (and I will plead guilty plenty of my own ignorance in this).

2) A whole lot of strong assertions based on very limited information. I know that's standard for an NVG thread, but this one may be one of the worst cases I've seen. Especially the people upset about a lawsuit that, as far as I've seen, no one other than people in this thread have even brought up.

LVS is a company with a market cap of 37.5B. It's not a ****ing convenience store or a mom and pop diner. When they reopened the poker room they should have thought of what happens when a disabled individual requiring another person to read their cards comes in wanting to play in a poker cash game or tournament. It's not some bizarre or alien possibility. It's literally something every business needs to consider. Accommodating individuals with disabilities. LVS needed to have a plan in place to deal with this situation.

If LVS determined that they could not reasonably accommodate the disabled individual without compromising public health and safety, and that such inability to accommodate didn't run contrary to federal law regarding the ADA, then such information should have been clearly posted at every entrance to the poker room and at the tournament buy in location. Literally large signs posted stating that they could not allow disabled individuals that required assistants, that this refusal didn't run contrary to the ADA, and who to contact to discuss this decision. This person should never have been able to buy into the tournament, approach a tournament table, or be dealt hands if the room could not accommodate him.

I personally believe that were reasonable accommodations that don't compromise public health and safety. For example, allowing two individuals who know each other into a single plexiglass space, removing one partition and reducing the tournament table size by one, having a larger diameter table that could allow a card reader. Perhaps these ideas aren't feasible. If so, then the above applies. GIANT SIGNS.

If you really think that decreasing one random table in a tournament to n-1 players in order to allow for a disabled player destroys the integrity of the poker tournament, then you can go **** yourself.

I don't want to play in a game where the guy sitting next to me takes a dump. Pee is borderline. Wheel out to the bathroom and take care of it.

You keep saying that, but that's not what the law says. It states that they have to accommodate him if it is reasonably possible to do so. Moreover, the ADA expressly provides that a public accommodation may exclude an individual if that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be mitigated by appropriate modifications in the public accommodation's policies or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that in this particular case that there was no way to reasonably accommodate the individual or that the casino was otherwise right to bar him. I'm merely saying that the issue is not as black and white as you continually state. What is reasonable in your eyes may exceed the standard of reasonableness in the eyes of the law.

facts vs feelings - the thread.

NVG is like:

Boyfriend: I need some space.

Girlfriend thinking to self: Oh my god I can’t believe he wants to break-up with me. I thought things were going so great. We have so much in common. I laugh at all his jokes. He says I’m pretty and I get along with all his friends. Ugh, my life is over.

Girlfriend aloud: What?

Boyfriend: Can you move over? I need some room.

This is probably a 30-minute issue that rational humans should be able to solve. If they can’t accommodate the player, they should refund his buy-in and give him and his caregiver 2 buffet tickets.

Also in these times the caregiver should have called ahead to make sure playing was possible.

Good luck with the ADA

I guess you've never been to Venetian.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

That is a lot of pejorative jargon you're spewing out.

What are you trying to communicate, in plain English please ?

This situation sums up the USA so well

Covid 19 numbers through the roof and this gentleman and his caregiver think its a good idea to go out and play a poker tournament when he has underlying conditions
The casino is scared of the rules the state has put in place for a good reason. If they deny him service they get sued. If they let him play and he contracts Covid they get sued

Guy decided to get a "new player card" during a pandemic. Did he just turn 21?